/honey-gain

name: honey-gain
description: >-
  Show Honey's benchmark scoreboard — the committed quality and token results per
  task tier (code, user-facing, agent-to-agent) from bench/. Reports only the
  reproducible committed figures, never invents per-repo numbers. Use when asked
  how much Honey saves, how it compares to Caveman / Ponytail / no-skill baseline,
  or for the headline numbers.
license: MIT

Honey Gain

Report the **committed** benchmark results — never a guessed or per-session number, and never an embedded copy that can drift from the bench.

Do

1. Recompute from the committed records at use time — don't recite from memory, and prefer the raw records over any rendered table (renderings go stale, the records don't):

   cd bench && node src/report.js --stamp full-opus48 --by-type

Offline, no API spend. Swap `--stamp full-gpt55` for the cross-provider figure, drop `--by-type` for the whole suite. Hive handoff numbers → [`bench/hive/RESULTS.md`](../../bench/hive/RESULTS.md). 2. Report the tier table terse: **Δ LOC and Δ output, each with its `p`**, judge as win/loss/tie, and the test pass-rate, per variant. The tier split *is* the finding — deepest on code and handoffs, output a statistical tie on user-facing (the polish carve-out). Lead with **Δ LOC**: it measures Lever 1 directly, while output tokens mix code with the prose around it, and the two come apart (Ponytail cuts lines but narrates at length).

Rules

• **Never quote a delta without its p-value**, and call `(ns)` results ties, not wins.

Every figure is a paired per-task median; a ratio of arm totals is not quotable.

• Prose renderings ([`bench/README.md`](../../bench/README.md#results), `results/combined.md`)

are secondary. If one disagrees with a fresh `--stamp` recompute, the recompute wins — say the rendering is out of sync.

• Quality is a **tie**, not a gain — that's the honest claim. Don't upgrade it.
• Cost/CO₂ savings are a *modelled counterfactual*, not measured; those belong to

`honey-eco`, which labels them. Don't state a dollar saving here.

• Asked for numbers on **this** repo? The bench measures the skill on a fixed task suite,

not the user's codebase — offer `cd bench && npm run bench`, don't extrapolate.

• One honest caveat, once: 23 author-written tasks, judge noise — the objective test-pass

column is the trustworthy correctness signal.

• Never resurrect the old unreproducible `92%/78%/73%` / `−57%/−65%/−70%` numbers, or the

superseded arm-total figures (`−49%` code, `−15%` aggregate) — see [`bench/METHODOLOGY.md`](../../bench/METHODOLOGY.md).